Apple also sells an unsubsidized fully unlocked cdma model from it's own stores and online, so those verizon customers who have to have one on verizon can still buy one if they got the extra cash, meanwhile the bulk of potential iphone customers who dislike at&t would probably opt to switch networks to sprint or t mobile to get the subsidized device.

This happens in many countries, with apple having 1 or 2 official carriers and also selling the phone unlocked for customers on other carriers.

it doesn't work that way. There is no such thing as an "unlocked" CDMA device. Locking occurs on the Carrier side, not on the device side. In order for a phone to work on Verizon, verizon has to approve the ESN that is unique to EACH device. Apple can't release a phone on verizon's network without Verizon allowing them too, period.

There are more differences between CDMA and GSM than the whole data/voice thing.

Verizon has never been interested in anything other than the bottom of the market. They out Sprinted Sprint years ago for the the bottom position. Expecting them to carry the premiere smart phone for cheap, is like expecting the local Toyota dealership to carry Ferrari parts at Toyota prices.

They are perfectly happy with second rate Android phones, just like they've been happy thru their entire existence to carry the lesser available phone models.

Yes, because it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the fact that Verizon and Sprint both run on CDMA networks, and that the frequencies used by American cell companies are not the same as those used by other CDMA coutries. (or that most of these asian countries produce phones that wouldn't get approved by our FCC anyway) so their selection of smartphone is inherently limited.

Or the fact that CDMA is owned by Qualcomm and that they require a higher royalty for their chips than any GSM provider so that the option of making high end, unsubsidized models isn't a attractive one (or practical, since it is impossible to sell an "unlocked" CDMA phone)

Yeah, it has nothing to do with that at all, and Android is totally just a second rate product when it comes to how much money it's making them (remember, att doesn't give a damn about how much apple makes on their phone).

Because, with Android, they can control what people access and how they access it, something the carriers are doing more and more with each "Android" phone, to the point where some of them no longer carry the Android name, and don't use Google services. With the iPhone, the carriers haven't been allowed to do that.

No, because with android, they don't have to pay companies an INSANE royalty check every quarter just to sell the phone, or be forced to buy a minimum number of phones before a single one is shipped, or have to fork over a larger % of the data revenue than any other company demands.

It's not apple controlling the experience that is the large issue here. It's that they want you to pay them a premium to do so, and an outrageous one at that. Yes, apple makes a ton of money with their product. But how much has ATT made?

More importantly, ATT's reputation has been drug through the mud for almost 4 years because of that phone, with a lot of customers saying "the only reason I'm with ATT is for the iphone" why would Verizon want to risk that bad press since none of it seems to stick on apple?

With anything but the iPhone they can bundle in "services". Much like useless extended warranties, the services are the real cash cow Verizon is fighting desperately to keep.

The problem is these services universly suck and most users can't wait to eliminate them

Don't be so optimistic about people.

Your quality standards may be high, as are mine, so we might not like the bloated Verizon apps forced onto phones. But as another poster or two noted, most people don't get user experience like we do. They're the ones who think, "1080p is always better than 720p because it's more!" They don't even notice how those bloatapps are hurting their user experience, mainly because they don't know any better.

As for those who notice how the apps suck: They deal with them, anyway. It's Verizon. Their network is perceived, by the mass majority of Americans, to be the most reliable in major cities, and the fastest, widest-reaching network in rural areas. That's why people go to Verizon. It's something Verizon has, that no other carrier has. Not customer service, or phone selection, or bloatware that may be on their phones. As long as their customers keep getting a good signal, and their calls don't get dropped, everything else is relatively unimportant.

Therefore, Verizon can get away with stuff that no other carrier can get away with. VZ knows they'll get their smartphone sales, no matter what kind of smartphone is sold -- their network is that good. So it only makes sense for them to develop and market phones which give them the best profit potential, both now and in the future. After all, you noted (correctly) that Verizon-exclusive apps are the big cash cow here. Android is the easiest way for them to implement that cash cow. It only makes sense for them to heavily develop for, then market, that platform.

Verizon has the leverage over Apple in this matter, unfortunately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by christopher126

95% of the businesses where the original owner dies and a 'CEO' takes over, eventually go out of business...Coke, Ford, McDonald's, Walmart are the exception...

...mainly because they have figured out the easiest business model is 'to sell a lot of crap at a small margin!'

Think about it, the largest beverage company in the world is Coke and what do they sell? Crap! Water with 11 spoonfuls of sugar in each 12 oz. can.

Or Diet Coke that causes brain lesions.

McDonald's, the largest restaurant chain in the world and what do they sell? Crap!

In fact, the McDonald's at Ground Zero has killed more Americans than the 19 terrorists did!

Verizon has missed the boat time and time again because of executive staff that have more foreskin than foresight....they should all be fired!

Under your argument, once Steve either dies or voluntarily leaves (like the latter would happen) the company he founded, Apple should then let Verizon brand their iPhone with endless bloatware, because remember: For Apple as a Steve-less company to survive, they've got to make their phones low-margin crapware. Way to amaze and delight customers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by plovell

Although I'd like Android to succeed as an OS, I fear that the Balkanization has killed it.

As long as the Android Market apps work in all the Balkanized Android phones, that's all that matters. Android is not dead.

Verizon is the fascist company they have always been. Looking for every way they can to screw the consumer. I can remember the state of the art Motorola phone I had just before I got my first iphone and Verizon made Motorola cripple the bluetooth functionality so that I couldn't download photos directly to my computer. Instead I had to buy a data plan just to get access to my own photos. They need to have their butt kicked hard as they are anti-consumer.

No, because with android, they don't have to pay companies an INSANE royalty check every quarter just to sell the phone, or be forced to buy a minimum number of phones before a single one is shipped, or have to fork over a larger % of the data revenue than any other company demands. ...

Those are at best secondary concerns. Carriers like Android for one reason: they can use it to control what happens on their networks and direct revenue generated off customers to their own pockets.

-- building superior products that many people want to buy.
-- playing by the rules to reserve components and production lines by committing (risking) $ in advance.

The Google/Verizon collusion was to make profits by:

-- changing the rules:to benefit themselves.
-- while claiming it was good for the customers: "We're on;y throng to help you"

The profit motive makes some raise themselves to excel... and others to lower themselves to conspire.

.

How does this not apply to Apple's and AT&T's agreement? Apple forces (or tries to anyway) me to stay on AT&T even after I have fulfilled my contract, presumably because AT&T will pay Apple more for the iPhone if they do. Is that not anti-consumer collusion?

Apple forces (or tries to anyway) me to stay on AT&T even after I have fulfilled my contract, presumably because AT&T will pay Apple more for the iPhone if they do. Is that not anti-consumer collusion?

First off, AT&T locking their iPhones isn't technically required to provide AT&T exclusivity. It probably is a condition in exchange for exclusivity, but it's not a requirement.

I could argue that it's technically collusion, but if it's collusion, it must be legal collusion. You can make the argument that any exclusivity agreement is collusion, but then what does that say about other exclusivity agreements, like the EA-NFL videogame exclusivity agreement? Or you could make the argument that a no-bid government contract is collusion, but no one is being charged with a crime, right? How is an exclusivity agreement collusion? How is locking a phone to a carrier collusion?

Besides, where else will you go for service? Sprint and Verizon don't use GSM/UMTS, and T-Mobile's 3G frequency band isn't in the range of any iPhone. Most would be pretty desperate to want to cripple their iPhone and use EDGE. Therefore, those who would be willing to take their iPhone to T-Mobile are in the vast minority. Meanwhile, a supermajority of AT&T customers are satisfied with AT&T. So even if there's collusion going on, few people are hurt by it, at least in this case.

I don't understand this. Why would Verizon care which phone sells - Android vs. iPhone? As long as they have the data/voice contract, the actual phone sold is unimportant. What stake does Verizon have in seeing Android succeed over iPhone?

I was involved in carrier negotiations in the past. The issue is that the cellular carriers feel they can:
1. Monetize apps that they control over and above the data plan price (i.e. AT&T Navigator at $10 per month, Vz's flawed music store).

2. Use the carrier controlled apps (crap-ware) to make "their" smartphone act and feel different to the user. Ivory tower cellular execs feel this will help them avoid being a dumb pipe and elevate the value of their brand WITHOUT having to dive into the murky waters of content creation or elegant user interfaces.

3. Ivory tower cellular execs feel the addition of their logo on the outside of the phone also adds value to their brand. (Note: there is a phrase for such fault self-induced-solitary-pleasure, but ivory tower cellular execs would deny ever m*********** in public.)

The bottom line:
iPhone owners are voting for with their pocketbooks for a great UI, pre-screened apps, user choice of what gets installed when, rapid user-initiated iOS upgrades, and elegant backup and restore. Vz doesn't get it yet.

-- building superior products that many people want to buy.
-- playing by the rules to reserve components and production lines by committing (risking) $ in advance.

-Verizon spent a ton of money (in advance) to build out their network, so people are willing to pay the premium for that coverage. (believe it or not, people arn't just parroting ads when they say verizon is the only one that works where they need it)
-Google spent time and money investing in things like GMAIL, creating products that millions around the world love and find everything else inferior at best.

Quote:

The Google/Verizon collusion was to make profits by:

-- changing the rules:to benefit themselves.
-- while claiming it was good for the customers: "We're on;y throng to help you"

You mean their net neutrality statement? The one that ATT also agrees with? (and most other telecom companies likely do as well)

Quote:

The profit motive makes some raise themselves to excel... and others to lower themselves to conspire.

.

Yep. Same could be said about apple. Thankfully the backlash they recieved was enough to kick some sense into them (banning cross compilers, blocking apps because they compete with apple products, etc)

How does this not apply to Apple's and AT&T's agreement? Apple forces (or tries to anyway) me to stay on AT&T even after I have fulfilled my contract, presumably because AT&T will pay Apple more for the iPhone if they do. Is that not anti-consumer collusion?

Sorry, but not getting your phone unlocked, which sucks, does not equate with actively sabotaging net neutrality, an act which ultimately undermines our free, democratic society.

Yep. Same could be said about apple. Thankfully the backlash they recieved was enough to kick some sense into them (banning cross compilers, blocking apps because they compete with apple products, etc)

And, again, none of this equates to sabotaging net neutrality, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Android/Blackberry/Featurephone on ATT: Loaded with bloatware, carrier branded phone, packaging and often theme.

Android/Blackberry/Featurephone on Verizon: Loaded with bloatware, carrier branded phone, packaging and often theme.

Iphone on ATT: Whatever steve wants, or ATT doesn't get the phone.

Iphone on Verizon:

Why do you people think it will be any different? You guys love painting big red as the culprit here, that they want to "control the experience" instead of letting apple handle it. But look at freaking ATT:

-Blocking Sideloading apps
-Putting Yahoo instead of Google on the backflip
-the torch has more att logos than you can shake a stick at.

They are doing the SAME THING you are saying Verizon will do, and yet they have the Iphone.

There is something else at work here. The biggest one is: Verizon doesn't need the iphone anymore. Their data profits are climbing nicely without paying apple royalties.

Yes, Big Red will stuff a phone fat with bloatware if you let it, but so will ATT. But, just like ATT they can be forced not to (The original Droid)

That's why Apple's pro-consumer experience stand is so important. Apple is possibly the only company besides possibly Microsoft who can't be bullied by the cellular networks into playing their branding and "value-add" games. And yes, AT&T and Sprint are doing it too. It would be like trying to sell electricity 2.0.

That's why Apple's pro-consumer experience stand is so important. Apple is possibly the only company besides possibly Microsoft who can't be bullied by the cellular networks into playing their branding and "value-add" games. And yes, AT&T and Sprint are doing it too. It would be like trying to sell electricity 2.0.

That's why Apple's pro-consumer experience stand is so important. Apple is possibly the only company besides possibly Microsoft who can't be bullied by the cellular networks into playing their branding and "value-add" games. And yes, AT&T and Sprint are doing it too. It would be like trying to sell electricity 2.0.

I was involved in carrier negotiations in the past. The issue is that the cellular carriers feel they can:
1. Monetize apps that they control over and above the data plan price (i.e. AT&T Navigator at $10 per month, Vz's flawed music store).

2. Use the carrier controlled apps (crap-ware) to make "their" smartphone act and feel different to the user. Ivory tower cellular execs feel this will help them avoid being a dumb pipe and elevate the value of their brand WITHOUT having to dive into the murky waters of content creation or elegant user interfaces.

3. Ivory tower cellular execs feel the addition of their logo on the outside of the phone also adds value to their brand. (Note: there is a phrase for such fault self-induced-solitary-pleasure, but ivory tower cellular execs would deny ever m*********** in public.)

The bottom line:
iPhone owners are voting for with their pocketbooks for a great UI, pre-screened apps, user choice of what gets installed when, rapid user-initiated iOS upgrades, and elegant backup and restore. Vz doesn't get it yet.

Except that if Verizon had the iphone in 2007 --- then you would have the chance to actually buy VZ Navigator at $10 a month from GIN in 2007.

But what did Apple do? Well, all you Apple fans got was a 2 year delay --- so that you could buy AT&T Navigator at the same $10 a month from itunes iphone app store --- in 2009.

Thanks for that link and it's not getting to that point it's gotten there as far as I'm concerned. I will hang on to my Droid for as long as possible.

There is no concern what so ever.

It is chicken or the egg problem.

All the handset manufacturers and carriers were leaning towards LiMO a few years back --- precisely because LiMO's "open source" license allowed them to fork the source code, put a bunch of proprietary stuff on top and keep the source code private.

The ONLY way Google could attract handset manufacturers and carriers to adopt Android instead of LiMO --- was to provide the same "open source" terms that allow them to fork the source code, put a bunch of proprietary stuff on top and keep the source code private.

Hell, Motorola has been selling linux phones in Asia since 2003 --- and these are some of the most locked up phones on earth. Linux hackers --- even with the source code provided by Motorola --- couldn't do a thing since 2003.

It just means they've bought up enough congressmen to fly under the radar. If apple took all their available cash and spent it on lobbying, we'd be living in the republic of apple, inc.

No, it just means that Apple became the big brother in the 1984 commercial and Google is a giant evil-doing company. These are giant companies dwarfing the carriers and headed by billionaires who can literally lose billions of dollars to destroy your tiny company's business model --- a la Microsoft style.

Hell, if you support the giant evil Microsoft --- at the very least, you know that Bill Gates is donating his fortune to save the world.

THis is what I have heard from a high ranking Verizon Exec. a friend of a friend. we will see. I am on Tmobile and have too great a rate to switch to verizon, but thats what i heard, and i believe this one.

THis is what I have heard from a high ranking Verizon Exec. a friend of a friend. we will see. I am on Tmobile and have too great a rate to switch to verizon, but thats what i heard, and i believe this one.

It's all these "friend of a friend who's a high-ranking Verizon employee" deals that cause me to be so skeptical of these rumors.

Gee the analysis are finally figuring out what I have been saying all along about a deal between Apple and VZ. The only way it will happen is if VZ gives up things which for some reason they deem a deal breaker like their logo on the phone or their VCast software, or locking out feature they do not want consumer having access to unless you are willing to pay extra for them.

I personally do not see VZ changing, they have not changes their business practices in last 30 yrs what makes any of you think that they will change now. They got the likes of Motorola and other cell phone companies under their thumb and they believe they can break the Apple experience with their branded phones and software and charge all you idiots for it.

Just like the old IBM, Apple is being investigated by FTC for anti-trust concerns.

This is just a dumb comment. There are no parallels in Apple's business operations to those of IBM at that time. I continue to be astounded at the lack of reasoning demonstrated by so many who seem to think that if one can identify one characteristic in common between two things one has shown that they are the same.

Quote:

Do you think that Warren Buffett is donating all his fortunes to Bill Gates Foundation because Buffett thinks that Gates is merely doing an act. You can tell a lot by the friends you keep.

If Apple does indeed produce a CDMA iPhone, would it not make sense to sell it fully unlocked through the Apple store and let people decide which CDMA network to join.

Could Verizon block CDMA iPhones on its network?

Yeah VZ does it every day, you can not activate a phone on VZ network without them being involved with the activation. You can buy any VZ CDMA phone from anyone one but you can not transfer your number to that phone without them doing it for you. Unlike GSM phone which required transferring the SIM card

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse

Actually, it's more like he's donating his fortune to save his reputation.

Have to agree, it is not like he started doing this day one or the day after he made his first million or billion in that case. I would say Gates is no better than Andrew Carnegie, Rockefeller, Or Hurst, All these men made their money off the backs of others then later in life they decided to give back since everyone hated them and they did not want to go down in history as the most hate men of their times. Gates is falling into that mold.

This is just a dumb comment. There are no parallels in Apple's business operations to those of IBM at that time. I continue to be astounded at the lack of reasoning demonstrated by so many who seem to think that if one can identify one characteristic in common between two things one has shown that they are the same.

Another dumb comment, bereft of logic, and entirely beside the point.

That's right, IBM's business operations were different --- that's why IBM was clear by anti-trust cops. So what happens if Apple gets nailed right now and IBM was clear 20 25 years ago? Then Apple is worse than IBM's big brother.

You don't have any logic at all --- you just have a personal hatred of Bill Gates and you try to spin his philanthropic activities. In fact, according to your theory --- then the only person that is truly philanthropic is Warren Buffett --- because he donates his money not through his "named" foundation, but through Bill Gates' foundation.